Pollinators cause stronger selection than herbivores on floral traits in<i>Lobelia cardinalis</i>(Lobeliaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measures of selection on floral traits in flowering plants are often motivated by the assumption that pollinators cause selection. Flowering plants experience selection from other sources, including herbivores, which may enhance or oppose selection by pollinators. Surprisingly, few studies have examined selection from multiple sources on the same traits. We quantified pollinator-mediated selection on six floral traits of Lobelia cardinalis by comparing selection in naturally and supplementally (hand-) pollinated plants. Directional, quadratic and correlational selection gradients as well as total directional and quadratic selection differentials were examined. We used path analysis to examine how three herbivores--slugs, weevils and caterpillars--affected the relationship between floral traits and fitness. We detected stronger total selection on four traits and correlational selection (γ(ij)) on three trait combinations in the natural pollination treatment, indicating that pollinators caused selection on these traits. Weak but statistically significant selection was caused by weevil larvae on stem diameter and anther-nectary distance, and by slugs on median-flower date. In this study, pollinators imposed stronger selection than herbivores on floral traits in L. cardinalis. In general, the degree of pollen limitation and rate of herbivory are expected to influence the relative strength of selection caused by pollinators or herbivores.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".